More Iviewit Proof of Fraud and MPEG LA Involvement.Proskauer Rose LLP Corruption. Patent Fraud ?
June 10, 1999 - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General
" Carey R. Ramos, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6064
Dear Mr. Ramos:
This letter is in response to your request on behalf of Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (collectively, the "Licensors"), for the issuance of a business review letter pursuant to the Department of Justice's Business Review Procedure, 28 C.F.R. § 50.6.
You have requested a statement of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement intentions with respect to a proposed arrangement pursuant to which Toshiba will assemble and offer a package license under the Licensors' patents that are "essential," as defined below, to manufacturing products in compliance with the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats and will distribute royalty income to the other Licensors.
I. The DVD-ROM and DVD-Video Formats
The Standard Specifications for the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats describe the physical and technical parameters for DVDs for read-only-memory and video applications, respectively, and "rules, conditions and mechanisms" for player units for the two formats.
(1) In either format, the DVD has more than seven times the storage capacity of a compact disc; a single-layer, single-sided DVD, for example, can store 4.7 billion bytes (4.38 GB) of information including audio, video, text, and data. Employing compression technology, a DVD-Video disc can hold a 135-minute feature film on a single side.
The Licensors, along with a number of other producers of consumer electronics hardware, software, or both,
(2) established the Standard Specifications.
(3) These Standard Specifications appear to implicate the intellectual property rights of numerous firms.
II. The Proposed Arrangement
A memorandum of understanding among the Licensors (the "MOU," attached as Exhibit 1 to your letter) sets forth the central terms of the proposed arrangement, pursuant to which Toshiba will aggregate the Licensors' "essential" patents and disseminate rights under them to makers of Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs), DVD players, and DVD decoders
(4) ("DVD Products"), and distribute royalty income to the other Licensors. The arrangement will be carried out through a group of other agreements, including:
(1) a license that Toshiba will receive from each other Licensor to enable Toshiba to license users of the Standard Specifications under that Licensor's "essential" patents (the "Authorization Agreement," attached as Exhibit 3); (2) Toshiba's sublicense to makers of DVD Products under the Licensors' patents (the "DVD Patent License," attached as Exhibit 2);
(3) an agreement among the Licensors concerning the retention and authority of experts to select and evaluate the patents to be licensed (the "Expert Agreement," attached as Exhibit 4); and
(4) the "Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation" (attached as Exhibit 7), which set forth the formula that will determine how Toshiba will distribute royalties among the Licensors.
(5) A. The patents to be licensed In the MOU, the Licensors commit to license each other and third parties to make, use and sell DVD Products under their present and future patents that are "essential" to doing so.
(6) The Licensors agree to two separate means of carrying out this obligation. First, they agree to grant Toshiba the right to sublicense third parties under their present and future "essential" patents for these purposes, and Toshiba agrees in turn to sublicense those patents, along with its own such patents, in the DVD Patent Licenses.
(7) Second, each Licensor agrees to "offer to license its essential DVD patents on a non-exclusive basis to interested third-party licensees pursuant to separate negotiations on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, whether or not said third-party licensees intend to make, use and sell DVD products that are in conformity with the Specifications."
(8) A Licensor's patent is "essential," and thus subject to the commitments in the MOU, if it is "necessarily infringed," or "there is no realistic alternative" to it, "in implementing the DVD Standard Specifications."
(9) Initially, each Licensor will identify its own "essential" patents in an attachment to its Authorization Agreement with Toshiba.
(10) Toshiba will then incorporate those patents in a list attached to the DVD Patent License.
(11) Shortly, however, an expert individual or panel, with "full and sufficient knowledge and skill in the relevant technology,"
(12) will complete a review the patents each Licensor has designated as "essential" in order to determine whether they satisfy the MOU criteria.
(13).MOU, ¶ 8; Expert Agreement, preamble.
(14) At that time, any patent initially designated by a Licensor for inclusion in the DVD Patent License that the expert determines is not "essential" will be excluded from subsequent DVD Patent Licenses, although current licensees will have the option to retain it in their existing licenses.
(15) The expert will repeat this comprehensive review of all the patents in the DVD Patent License portfolio every four years.
(16) In between the quadrennial reviews, the proposed program also provides a mechanism by which the expert may review individual patents whose essentiality comes into question. If a Licensor comes to a good faith conclusion that a licensed patent is not "essential," and provides a reasonable basis for that belief, the expert will re-examine the patent.
(17) If the expert concludes that the patent is not "essential," the patent will be excluded from the DVD Patent License.
(18) The agreement provides that the expert's determinations are "conclusive and non-appealable," although the expert must submit a report explaining any decision that a patent was not "essential."
(19) Compensation will be at the expert's "standard hourly rates."
(20) Each Licensor will bear the cost of the expert's review of its patents; the Licensors will share costs attributable to all of them, such as time spent reviewing the DVD Standard Specifications.
(21) The expert, although retained by the Licensors and selected by a majority vote among them, will not have an economic affiliation with any individual Licensor.
(22) A majority of the Licensors may remove the expert for failure or inability to perform the duties set forth in the Expert Agreement "in a professional, competent, reliable or timely manner."
(23) Although the proposed licensing program currently includes the patents of only the Licensors, it is open to any owner of an "essential" patent willing to license on the program's terms and conditions.(24)
Full Letter and Source of Post
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm
Save and Print the Above for Your Records.
Note: over the Last year of Writing on iViewt the companies at the top of this post have been all over my Blogs, they Ignore what is happening because the UPSTO, US Judges, Corrupt Law Firms like Foley and Lardner and ALL on my blog at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ seem to be protected by US Billionaires and Politicians. THEY know that the Massive Shareholder Liability is Inevitable and Are Protecting themselve from it.
No ONE is Protecting Investors or Inventors.
More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud Coming Soon to a Pocket Book near You.
http://www.iviewit.tv/
http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/
http://www.deniedpatent.com/
my Original Post to Warn Shareholders, Expose Corruption, Fight for Inventors Rights and demand that the SEC, FBI, DOJ, USPTO and more investigate the crimes in the iViewit case and STOP ignoring the rights of victims in favor of Elite Law Firms such as Proskauer Rose LLP
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/10/mpeg-la-dvd-licensing-toshiba-letter.html
Showing posts with label Department of Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Justice. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Not Much Bounty for SEC Whistleblower Program - SEC's Enforcement Division - Peter Sivere - Whistleblowers Are Ignored
"" For more than 20 years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has had a program in place to reward whistleblowers who provide the agency with information about insider trading. But a new audit by the SEC Office of Inspector General (OIG) reveals that the program has almost never been used, is barely recognized inside or outside the SEC, and has fundamental design flaws.
It turns out the SEC has received very few applications in the past two decades for bounties under the program -- and only five people have actually received payments since the program first began:
Design Flaws in the Bounty Program
The OIG also found that the program suffers from the following deficiencies: it's poorly recognized by the public and even within the SEC; the criteria for judging bounty applications is overly vague; the SEC does not have good internal policies to guide staff in reviewing bounty applications; the SEC rarely provides whistleblowers with status reports on their applications (a problem we've also heard about at other IG offices); once the applications are passed on, there are no systems in place to ensure that they are processed in an adequate and timely fashion; and the documentation for bounty referrals is often incomplete.
Many Whistleblowers Are Ignored or Even Subjected to Retaliation
POGO previously reported on anecdotal evidence of the problems described by the SEC OIG.
Writing for Politics Daily, we described how one whistleblower was retaliated against after inquiring whether he would be eligible to receive a bounty payment under the SEC's program. Peter Sivere, who at the time was working as a compliance officer at JPMorgan, first approached the SEC with evidence showing that his employer had failed to disclose documents sought in a wide-ranging SEC probe into a practice known as market timing. He was told that he didn't qualify for a bounty payment, but he provided the information anyway.
But instead of protecting Peter Sivere, the SEC enforcement attorney investigating the matter told JPMorgan's counsel about Peter Sivere's initial inquiry about a cash payment. JPMorgan's counsel then used this information to disparage Peter Sivere's whistleblower credentials at a proceeding before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, in which Peter Sivere had contended that JPMorgan retaliated against him after he went to the SEC.
A subsequent investigation by the SEC OIG found that the enforcement attorney, George Demos , had violated agency rules by disclosing non-public information in an ongoing investigation, and recommended that disciplinary action be taken. George Demos left the SEC shortly thereafter and is now running for Congress.
OIG's Recommendations
To help correct the many deficiencies in the whistleblower bounty program, the OIG's latest audit recommended that the SEC's Enforcement Division develop a communications plan to publicize its existence; post the application on its website with clear instructions for the whistleblower; establish better policies to follow up with the whistleblower once the complaint is received; develop specific criteria for recommending bounty awards; improve its internal controls for tracking tips and complaints; require that a bounty file with minimum documentation be created for each application; and incorporate best practices from comparable programs run by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Services (IRS).
Congressional Reforms and Problems with Other Bounty Programs
In the meantime, Congress is also considering legislation to improve the SEC's whistleblower bounty program. The financial regulatory overhaul bill passed by the House last fall included a provision to authorize the SEC to award bounty payments tied to any judicial or administrative action brought by the SEC (i.e., not just insider trading cases) that results in monetary sanctions of over $1 million.
The provision also enables the whistleblower to receive up to 30 percent of the amount recovered (the current limit is 10 percent).
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd's (D-CT) bill would go even further, ensuring that the whistleblower receives no less than 10 percent of the monetary sanctions, and allowing the whistleblower to appeal any aspect of the SEC's decision, including whether, to whom, and in what amount to make the award.
We applaud these legislative fixes and hope that the final bill reflects the stronger language proposed by the Senate. However, the SEC should also learn from the shortcomings in comparable whistleblower reward programs run by other agencies.
While the False Claims Act has resulted in over $20 billion in recoveries since 1986, the IRS's program to reward whistleblowers who spot tax problems in their workplace shares some of the same problems uncovered by the SEC OIG.
The IRS program, which was established under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, enables whistleblowers to receive between 15 and 30 percent of the collected proceeds.
However, a recent audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the IRS's Whistleblower Office does not have a good system in place to manage and track cases, and that no awards have actually been paid out under the new program, in part because the claims can take over a decade to process.
One well-known whistleblower who's still waiting to hear whether he will receive an award is former UBS employee Brad Birkenfeld, who was sentenced to 40 months in prison after he attempted to inform the IRS and DOJ about his role in soliciting wealthy Americans to evade taxes through services provided by the Swiss bank.
Although his ordeal isn't necessarily a reflection on the IRS program, it does highlight the dangers often faced by individuals who blow the whistle on corporate wrongdoing.
In any event, the SEC could use all the help it can get when it comes to handling whistleblower complaints, and we hope that the OIG's recommendations and Congress's legislation will finally enable the SEC to give whistleblowers the protection and recognition they deserve.
-- Michael Smallberg ""Sourcehttp://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/04/if-the-sec-has-a-whistleblower-program-but-nobody-ever-uses-it-does-it-really-exist.html
It turns out the SEC has received very few applications in the past two decades for bounties under the program -- and only five people have actually received payments since the program first began:
Design Flaws in the Bounty Program
The OIG also found that the program suffers from the following deficiencies: it's poorly recognized by the public and even within the SEC; the criteria for judging bounty applications is overly vague; the SEC does not have good internal policies to guide staff in reviewing bounty applications; the SEC rarely provides whistleblowers with status reports on their applications (a problem we've also heard about at other IG offices); once the applications are passed on, there are no systems in place to ensure that they are processed in an adequate and timely fashion; and the documentation for bounty referrals is often incomplete.
Many Whistleblowers Are Ignored or Even Subjected to Retaliation
POGO previously reported on anecdotal evidence of the problems described by the SEC OIG.
Writing for Politics Daily, we described how one whistleblower was retaliated against after inquiring whether he would be eligible to receive a bounty payment under the SEC's program. Peter Sivere, who at the time was working as a compliance officer at JPMorgan, first approached the SEC with evidence showing that his employer had failed to disclose documents sought in a wide-ranging SEC probe into a practice known as market timing. He was told that he didn't qualify for a bounty payment, but he provided the information anyway.
But instead of protecting Peter Sivere, the SEC enforcement attorney investigating the matter told JPMorgan's counsel about Peter Sivere's initial inquiry about a cash payment. JPMorgan's counsel then used this information to disparage Peter Sivere's whistleblower credentials at a proceeding before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, in which Peter Sivere had contended that JPMorgan retaliated against him after he went to the SEC.
A subsequent investigation by the SEC OIG found that the enforcement attorney, George Demos , had violated agency rules by disclosing non-public information in an ongoing investigation, and recommended that disciplinary action be taken. George Demos left the SEC shortly thereafter and is now running for Congress.
OIG's Recommendations
To help correct the many deficiencies in the whistleblower bounty program, the OIG's latest audit recommended that the SEC's Enforcement Division develop a communications plan to publicize its existence; post the application on its website with clear instructions for the whistleblower; establish better policies to follow up with the whistleblower once the complaint is received; develop specific criteria for recommending bounty awards; improve its internal controls for tracking tips and complaints; require that a bounty file with minimum documentation be created for each application; and incorporate best practices from comparable programs run by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Services (IRS).
Congressional Reforms and Problems with Other Bounty Programs
In the meantime, Congress is also considering legislation to improve the SEC's whistleblower bounty program. The financial regulatory overhaul bill passed by the House last fall included a provision to authorize the SEC to award bounty payments tied to any judicial or administrative action brought by the SEC (i.e., not just insider trading cases) that results in monetary sanctions of over $1 million.
The provision also enables the whistleblower to receive up to 30 percent of the amount recovered (the current limit is 10 percent).
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd's (D-CT) bill would go even further, ensuring that the whistleblower receives no less than 10 percent of the monetary sanctions, and allowing the whistleblower to appeal any aspect of the SEC's decision, including whether, to whom, and in what amount to make the award.
We applaud these legislative fixes and hope that the final bill reflects the stronger language proposed by the Senate. However, the SEC should also learn from the shortcomings in comparable whistleblower reward programs run by other agencies.
While the False Claims Act has resulted in over $20 billion in recoveries since 1986, the IRS's program to reward whistleblowers who spot tax problems in their workplace shares some of the same problems uncovered by the SEC OIG.
The IRS program, which was established under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, enables whistleblowers to receive between 15 and 30 percent of the collected proceeds.
However, a recent audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the IRS's Whistleblower Office does not have a good system in place to manage and track cases, and that no awards have actually been paid out under the new program, in part because the claims can take over a decade to process.
One well-known whistleblower who's still waiting to hear whether he will receive an award is former UBS employee Brad Birkenfeld, who was sentenced to 40 months in prison after he attempted to inform the IRS and DOJ about his role in soliciting wealthy Americans to evade taxes through services provided by the Swiss bank.
Although his ordeal isn't necessarily a reflection on the IRS program, it does highlight the dangers often faced by individuals who blow the whistle on corporate wrongdoing.
In any event, the SEC could use all the help it can get when it comes to handling whistleblower complaints, and we hope that the OIG's recommendations and Congress's legislation will finally enable the SEC to give whistleblowers the protection and recognition they deserve.
-- Michael Smallberg ""Sourcehttp://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/04/if-the-sec-has-a-whistleblower-program-but-nobody-ever-uses-it-does-it-really-exist.html
Friday, March 12, 2010
Department of Justice, False Claims Act, Fraud Whistleblower, Whistleblower Blogs
Great Whistleblower Blog on Department of Justice Fraud, Oversight, Lack of Staff to Look into Fraud Alerts, Corrupt Judges, Above the Law Judicial Cronies and Lots More...
"" ..site was created because in my opinion the False Claims Act and other remedies available to ordinary citizens to combat waste, fraud, special interests and abuse that is taking place in this country are a joke.
The Department of Justice takes less than 1% of the fraud cases presented to them due to lack of staff. If the case succeeds, the Department of Justice gets over 75% of the reward. It should be the other way around.
If the Department of Justice passes on the case i.e. it is so unconcerned with the defrauding of the American citizen, then the person who brought the fraud to the attention of society and risked his or her job, family, time and money to right the wrongs that the government created but refuses to fix should get 75% of the reward for their trouble.
I believe that the doctrine of sovereign immunity and qualified sovereign immunity is illegal, and that every judge who upholds the illegal doctrine of sovereign immunity be placed in jail for treason.
I also believe that any judge who interprets the 11th amendment as barring a person from suing the state in which he or she resides, be put in jail for treason and given remedial reading lessons because obviously the judge had trouble understanding the words the founders put in front of him or her.
Yes it is treason. Sovereign immunity is a doctrine based on English law that tried to make it into the Constitution 2x but was rejected by our founders both times. So the Judiciary did — illegally — what the founders refused to do which is to create a 2 tiered legal system where some people and entities are more equal than others.
In fact I don’t know why the Judiciary didn’t just rename America — Animal Farm. If you want a system that is just, then everyone must be subject to the same consequences for bad behavior.
The people who create the law in America have absolutely no right or authority to insulate themselves or other “special people” from the laws everyone is supposed to be subject to. America is a country by the people and for the people. I think our government and our judiciary would best remember that. ""
Folks Sites like this One are Part of the Solution... Check out the Link Below and Lend your support to this Amazing Whistleblower Exposing Corruption, Providing Solutions, Exposing Fraud, Exposing Corrupt Judges, Calling Out the Department of Justice for Not Doing their Job.. Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox says WOW.. I am Impressed... this Woman is Amazing and I Encourage you to read the site below and to FIND your Voice - Speak Up - Now is Time. NO law enforcement, Law Maker, Judge, Or Attorney Should Be Above the Law...
Click Here to Read this Amazing Whistleblower Report ....
"" ..site was created because in my opinion the False Claims Act and other remedies available to ordinary citizens to combat waste, fraud, special interests and abuse that is taking place in this country are a joke.
The Department of Justice takes less than 1% of the fraud cases presented to them due to lack of staff. If the case succeeds, the Department of Justice gets over 75% of the reward. It should be the other way around.
If the Department of Justice passes on the case i.e. it is so unconcerned with the defrauding of the American citizen, then the person who brought the fraud to the attention of society and risked his or her job, family, time and money to right the wrongs that the government created but refuses to fix should get 75% of the reward for their trouble.
I believe that the doctrine of sovereign immunity and qualified sovereign immunity is illegal, and that every judge who upholds the illegal doctrine of sovereign immunity be placed in jail for treason.
I also believe that any judge who interprets the 11th amendment as barring a person from suing the state in which he or she resides, be put in jail for treason and given remedial reading lessons because obviously the judge had trouble understanding the words the founders put in front of him or her.
Yes it is treason. Sovereign immunity is a doctrine based on English law that tried to make it into the Constitution 2x but was rejected by our founders both times. So the Judiciary did — illegally — what the founders refused to do which is to create a 2 tiered legal system where some people and entities are more equal than others.
In fact I don’t know why the Judiciary didn’t just rename America — Animal Farm. If you want a system that is just, then everyone must be subject to the same consequences for bad behavior.
The people who create the law in America have absolutely no right or authority to insulate themselves or other “special people” from the laws everyone is supposed to be subject to. America is a country by the people and for the people. I think our government and our judiciary would best remember that. ""
Folks Sites like this One are Part of the Solution... Check out the Link Below and Lend your support to this Amazing Whistleblower Exposing Corruption, Providing Solutions, Exposing Fraud, Exposing Corrupt Judges, Calling Out the Department of Justice for Not Doing their Job.. Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox says WOW.. I am Impressed... this Woman is Amazing and I Encourage you to read the site below and to FIND your Voice - Speak Up - Now is Time. NO law enforcement, Law Maker, Judge, Or Attorney Should Be Above the Law...
Click Here to Read this Amazing Whistleblower Report ....
Friday, February 5, 2010
more on the Iviewit Case - This one is as of Sept. 09 P. Stephen Lamont acting as if he is still CEO of the Iviewit Company. Who Really has the RIGHT
... to act on Behalf of Iviewit
"CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention
CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention Category: Web, HTML, Tech
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
........
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Direct Dial: 914-217-0038
By Overnight Mail (o), Facsimile (f) and Certified Delivery (c)
September 23, 2009
The Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (o) The Hon. Preet Bharara (c)
Attorney General of the United States United States Attorney for
Office of the Attorney General District of New York
United States Department of Justice United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. One St. Andrews Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 New York, New York 10007
Hon. William M. Welch II (c) The Hon. John L. Sampson (f)
Chief, Public Integrity Unit Chairman, New York State Senate
United States Department of Justice Judiciary Committee
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W 409 Legislative Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Albany, NY 12247
RE: Request for Federal Intervention into Allegations of Corruption and Appointment of Federal Monitor.
Gentlemen:
By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and related parties (“Iviewit”), and pursuant to my fiduciary duties, I respectfully request your offices to: (i) attend the New York State Senate’s Standing Committee on the Judiciary’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing concerning The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“1st DDC”), the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts (collectively, the “DDC’s”), and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (“CJC”), where you will hear testimony related to the commission of Federal crimes by and between and the 1st DDC, the DCC’s, the CJC and aggrieved citizens of the State of New York; (ii) once you have digested such testimony, and by the body(ies) of appropriate jurisdiction, the eventual issuance of a temporary injunction and a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of New York from further administration of the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC and the insertion of a Federal monitor to administer such agencies in lieu of State administration; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate such allegations of the commission of Federal crimes and the eventual prosecution of same.
As a case in point, the following describes the experiences of Iviewit with the aforementioned New York State agencies:
I. Iviewit Technology
The series of events proximate to the instant circumstances herein surrounds the sabotage of the multimedia inventions of Iviewit and the further alleged cover-up of that patent sabotage by the many attorneys, public officers, and members of the judiciary within and outside of the State of New York.
To begin, I would like to make it clear that Iviewit is not referring to some rudimentary software that will be rendered obsolete as newer versions emerge, but that the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems (“IP”) are THE backbone, enabling technologies for the encoding and transmission of video and images across all networks and viewable on all display devices, an elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video frames to unlock bandwidth, processing, and storage constraints presently in use by cable MSO’s, satellite MSO’s, telco MSO’s, and terrestrial networks, among a host of others. On the imaging side, presently in use by all those hardware manufacturers of image and/or video capture devices and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Mars Rover images), Iviewit stakes the claim as the inventors of digital zoom.
II. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE COMPLAINTS FILED
1st DDC
In or about February 2003, and in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to attorney misconduct complaints against Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), Proskauer, Raymond A. Joao, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel LLP (“MLG”) filed with the 1st DDC, that were mired in undisclosed conflicts, improprieties, and violations of public offices of the 1st DDC from the outset. The attorney discipline response of Rubenstein was authored by Steven C. Krane of Proskauer who, upon information and belief, held positions at the 1st DDC and other disciplinary agencies at the time of the response making his representation a conflict of interest and violation of public offices.
In or about June 2003, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Steven C. Krane (“Krane”) for the above referenced conflicts and improprieties in the response for Rubenstein that imparted same on the now merged Joao complaint.
In or about June 2004, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel of the 1st DDC, filed with the 1st DDC, Special Inquiry #2004.1122, as a result of Cahill’s knowing and willful false information supplied to Iviewit in an effort to protect Krane, that had since been stalled under the direction of persons unknown, and sat incommunicado in the offices of Special Counsel, Martin R. Gold, for investigation.
In or about June 2004, I was an individual movant in a Motion to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”), inter alia, to begin immediate investigation of complaints against the above referenced attorneys and counselors-at-law. Subsequently, the First Department Court granted the Motion and in an unpublished order it was determined to move the complaints of Rubenstein, Proskauer, Krane, MLG, and Joao to the Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“2nd DDC”) as a result of conflicts and the appearance of impropriety. After thorough review of the subject matter, the First Department Court ordered the immediate investigation of the complaints against each attorney involved – Rubenstein M2820, Joao M3212, and Krane M3198, while the First Department Court ordered the Cahill complaint for a Special Inquiry #2004.1122 by Gold.
2nd DDC
On or about October 2004, the 2nd DDC summarily dismissed the complaints against Rubenstein, Proskauer, MLG, Joao and Krane, failing to conduct the First Department Court’s ordered investigation. In a discussion with Diana Maxwell Kearse, Chief Counsel of the 2nd DDC, Kearse stated that she and the 2nd DDC are not subject to the jurisdiction of the First Department Court and therefore could do as they please, or words to that effect; Kearse factually defies the Orders of the First Department Court so as to preclude the complaints against Rubenstein, Joao, and Krane.
DAMAGES SUFFERED
Were it not for Iviewit’s discovery of the conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in Krane’s response for Rubenstein and Proskauer, the attorneys would have received discipline by reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, where such discipline would have been positively reflected in a variety of complaints across domestic and international agencies, but particularly the Iviewit intellectual property investigation being conducted by Harry I. Moatz, the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Were it not for the stalling of the Rubenstein and Joao complaints at the 1st DDC, and the unpublished nature of the First Department Court’s order, the transfer to an equally conflicted 2nd DDC, and the dismissal of the Rubenstein, Proskauer, Joao, Meltzer and Krane complaints by the 2nd DDC in reckless disregard for the Order of the First Department Court, Iviewit shareholders would not have suffered the damages of:
Emotional distress; and
Loss of consortium with their families; and
On a personal note, lost savings in the amount of approximately One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000); and
Lost value of the equity interest in the capital stock in Iviewit Holdings, Inc. in an amount that can approach One Trillion Dollars ($1,000,000,000,000).
Consequently, considering the above set of circumstances, the state of affairs in New York will never right itself absent Federal intervention, and Iviewit again respectfully requests: (i) the attendance, by individuals at your discretion, at the New York State’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing; (ii) and once familiar with the state of affairs, the appointment of a Federal monitor to administer the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the commission of these Federal crimes.
Thank you for your attention to these matters, and Iviewit looks forward to your earliest replies.
Very truly yours,
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
....By:
Chief Executive Officer
Reply to Address:
35 Locust Avenue
Rye, N.Y. 10580
Cc: The Hon. David A. Paterson (c)
New York State Governor
Office of the Governor of New York State
State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
The Hon. Boyd M. Johnson III (c)
Deputy United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Public Corruption Unit
United States Department of Justice
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007
The Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo (c)
New York State Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-0341
The Hon. Loretta Preska (c)
Chief U. S. District Judge
United States Courthouse
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312
The Hon. Luis A. Gonzales (c)
Presiding Justice, New York State Appellate Division, 1st Dept.
27 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10010
The Hon. Joseph M. Demarest, Jr. (c)
Assistant Director in Charge, New York Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10278-0004
Source of Above QUOTE
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=114167543&blogId=511391360
Lamont - Iviewit
More on the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV - Eliot Bernstein's Website or
www.DeniedPatent.com the Blog of Crystal L. Cox Industry Whistleblower
Crystal L. Cox
"CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention
CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention Category: Web, HTML, Tech
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
........
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Direct Dial: 914-217-0038
By Overnight Mail (o), Facsimile (f) and Certified Delivery (c)
September 23, 2009
The Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (o) The Hon. Preet Bharara (c)
Attorney General of the United States United States Attorney for
Office of the Attorney General District of New York
United States Department of Justice United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. One St. Andrews Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 New York, New York 10007
Hon. William M. Welch II (c) The Hon. John L. Sampson (f)
Chief, Public Integrity Unit Chairman, New York State Senate
United States Department of Justice Judiciary Committee
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W 409 Legislative Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Albany, NY 12247
RE: Request for Federal Intervention into Allegations of Corruption and Appointment of Federal Monitor.
Gentlemen:
By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and related parties (“Iviewit”), and pursuant to my fiduciary duties, I respectfully request your offices to: (i) attend the New York State Senate’s Standing Committee on the Judiciary’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing concerning The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“1st DDC”), the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts (collectively, the “DDC’s”), and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (“CJC”), where you will hear testimony related to the commission of Federal crimes by and between and the 1st DDC, the DCC’s, the CJC and aggrieved citizens of the State of New York; (ii) once you have digested such testimony, and by the body(ies) of appropriate jurisdiction, the eventual issuance of a temporary injunction and a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of New York from further administration of the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC and the insertion of a Federal monitor to administer such agencies in lieu of State administration; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate such allegations of the commission of Federal crimes and the eventual prosecution of same.
As a case in point, the following describes the experiences of Iviewit with the aforementioned New York State agencies:
I. Iviewit Technology
The series of events proximate to the instant circumstances herein surrounds the sabotage of the multimedia inventions of Iviewit and the further alleged cover-up of that patent sabotage by the many attorneys, public officers, and members of the judiciary within and outside of the State of New York.
To begin, I would like to make it clear that Iviewit is not referring to some rudimentary software that will be rendered obsolete as newer versions emerge, but that the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems (“IP”) are THE backbone, enabling technologies for the encoding and transmission of video and images across all networks and viewable on all display devices, an elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video frames to unlock bandwidth, processing, and storage constraints presently in use by cable MSO’s, satellite MSO’s, telco MSO’s, and terrestrial networks, among a host of others. On the imaging side, presently in use by all those hardware manufacturers of image and/or video capture devices and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Mars Rover images), Iviewit stakes the claim as the inventors of digital zoom.
II. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE COMPLAINTS FILED
1st DDC
In or about February 2003, and in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to attorney misconduct complaints against Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), Proskauer, Raymond A. Joao, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel LLP (“MLG”) filed with the 1st DDC, that were mired in undisclosed conflicts, improprieties, and violations of public offices of the 1st DDC from the outset. The attorney discipline response of Rubenstein was authored by Steven C. Krane of Proskauer who, upon information and belief, held positions at the 1st DDC and other disciplinary agencies at the time of the response making his representation a conflict of interest and violation of public offices.
In or about June 2003, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Steven C. Krane (“Krane”) for the above referenced conflicts and improprieties in the response for Rubenstein that imparted same on the now merged Joao complaint.
In or about June 2004, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel of the 1st DDC, filed with the 1st DDC, Special Inquiry #2004.1122, as a result of Cahill’s knowing and willful false information supplied to Iviewit in an effort to protect Krane, that had since been stalled under the direction of persons unknown, and sat incommunicado in the offices of Special Counsel, Martin R. Gold, for investigation.
In or about June 2004, I was an individual movant in a Motion to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”), inter alia, to begin immediate investigation of complaints against the above referenced attorneys and counselors-at-law. Subsequently, the First Department Court granted the Motion and in an unpublished order it was determined to move the complaints of Rubenstein, Proskauer, Krane, MLG, and Joao to the Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“2nd DDC”) as a result of conflicts and the appearance of impropriety. After thorough review of the subject matter, the First Department Court ordered the immediate investigation of the complaints against each attorney involved – Rubenstein M2820, Joao M3212, and Krane M3198, while the First Department Court ordered the Cahill complaint for a Special Inquiry #2004.1122 by Gold.
2nd DDC
On or about October 2004, the 2nd DDC summarily dismissed the complaints against Rubenstein, Proskauer, MLG, Joao and Krane, failing to conduct the First Department Court’s ordered investigation. In a discussion with Diana Maxwell Kearse, Chief Counsel of the 2nd DDC, Kearse stated that she and the 2nd DDC are not subject to the jurisdiction of the First Department Court and therefore could do as they please, or words to that effect; Kearse factually defies the Orders of the First Department Court so as to preclude the complaints against Rubenstein, Joao, and Krane.
DAMAGES SUFFERED
Were it not for Iviewit’s discovery of the conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in Krane’s response for Rubenstein and Proskauer, the attorneys would have received discipline by reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, where such discipline would have been positively reflected in a variety of complaints across domestic and international agencies, but particularly the Iviewit intellectual property investigation being conducted by Harry I. Moatz, the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Were it not for the stalling of the Rubenstein and Joao complaints at the 1st DDC, and the unpublished nature of the First Department Court’s order, the transfer to an equally conflicted 2nd DDC, and the dismissal of the Rubenstein, Proskauer, Joao, Meltzer and Krane complaints by the 2nd DDC in reckless disregard for the Order of the First Department Court, Iviewit shareholders would not have suffered the damages of:
Emotional distress; and
Loss of consortium with their families; and
On a personal note, lost savings in the amount of approximately One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000); and
Lost value of the equity interest in the capital stock in Iviewit Holdings, Inc. in an amount that can approach One Trillion Dollars ($1,000,000,000,000).
Consequently, considering the above set of circumstances, the state of affairs in New York will never right itself absent Federal intervention, and Iviewit again respectfully requests: (i) the attendance, by individuals at your discretion, at the New York State’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing; (ii) and once familiar with the state of affairs, the appointment of a Federal monitor to administer the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the commission of these Federal crimes.
Thank you for your attention to these matters, and Iviewit looks forward to your earliest replies.
Very truly yours,
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
....By:
Chief Executive Officer
Reply to Address:
35 Locust Avenue
Rye, N.Y. 10580
Cc: The Hon. David A. Paterson (c)
New York State Governor
Office of the Governor of New York State
State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
The Hon. Boyd M. Johnson III (c)
Deputy United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Public Corruption Unit
United States Department of Justice
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007
The Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo (c)
New York State Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-0341
The Hon. Loretta Preska (c)
Chief U. S. District Judge
United States Courthouse
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312
The Hon. Luis A. Gonzales (c)
Presiding Justice, New York State Appellate Division, 1st Dept.
27 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10010
The Hon. Joseph M. Demarest, Jr. (c)
Assistant Director in Charge, New York Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10278-0004
Source of Above QUOTE
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=114167543&blogId=511391360
Lamont - Iviewit
More on the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV - Eliot Bernstein's Website or
www.DeniedPatent.com the Blog of Crystal L. Cox Industry Whistleblower
Crystal L. Cox
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Bankruptcy Courts are Corrupt there is no doubt about it
There is too much room for too many people to make money. And it is FREE Money.
Meaning the Creditors Committee, the Bankruptcy Court System, the Judges, the Trustees and all who are on the Bankruptcy Courts Payroll they get to make money, and get to claim it is a needed and legitimate expense and the Creditors just get to Eat It.
Which makes the Creditors ( real estate consumers, investors) really mad.. it makes them feel violated and fill with hate… but that Rage is directed at the company that went bankrupt and not at the company, the attorneys, the courts, the “System” that is the real party taking all their money. So they get to make the money with NO Accountability to anyone.
Money freely flows to all parts of the system and the Original Company as well as their Consumers, Investors.. Creditors… well they get screwed. But it really is party time for the Court System and all the players that get to share the proceeds from your life’s work. And this is seemingly all legal.
There is too much room in the current Bankruptcy Court System and Liquidation Process to give favors to friends, investors that will “favor you back” in the future, hide money for you, create companies or investments for the future or many – MANY other ways to create a diversion while hiding plenty of YOUR MONEY for their future.
There is tons of money to pay high wages to friends, lawyers, and anyone that they think may be able to help them liquidate in such a way that all their Cronies get big pay offs now and in the future.
Rules are Broken, Laws are Ignored, Judges sign off on certain circumstances in the name of the Highest Fiduciary Responsibility and no one seems to really pay attention to the real High Finance Fraud, Corruption, Theft and total disgrace of the lives and investments of the Real Estate Consumer – the Investor – the Creditor…
Meanwhile the original victims, such as the Real Estate Consumer, Real Estate Investor they get pennies on the dollar and though angry seem to think that there is nothing they can do about it and they blame the company that went bankrupt instead of the fallacies of the Bankruptcy Court System and the Severe Lack of Accountability of the US Depart of Justice Trustee that is Supposedly Looking of the Case. As well as the total lack of investigating or admitted knowledge of the affiliation of all the players involved in any particular Bankruptcy or Liquidation Process.
The Original investor, or real estate consumer, well they Do Care that their money is gone, however with the controlled media on the issue, the news articles that go out on that particular company or bankruptcy situation, what you have is the creation of the perfect storm of illusion. In this the Consumer (Creditor) really believes that the company who is going bankrupt is Evil, Ignorant, Thieves, Criminals, and in this they simply bend over and by in to the illusion that it is in the Justice Courts now and they will get justice someone.
They buy into the thinking that there is nothing they can do and that they are simply powerless as millions of their dollars is spent on unnecessary gibberish. They continue to blame the Original Company that Went Bankrupt while the wolf in sheep’s clothing is running off with their life’s work.
Do not Look the Other way while this continues to happen. It seems to be an endless - LEGAL - cycle of High Finance - Greed and Corruption and all on your Dime.
Crystal L. Cox
Real Estate Whistleblower
r
www.ObsidianFinanceSucks.com
r
www.RealEstateIndustryWhistleblower.com
r
r
Meaning the Creditors Committee, the Bankruptcy Court System, the Judges, the Trustees and all who are on the Bankruptcy Courts Payroll they get to make money, and get to claim it is a needed and legitimate expense and the Creditors just get to Eat It.
Which makes the Creditors ( real estate consumers, investors) really mad.. it makes them feel violated and fill with hate… but that Rage is directed at the company that went bankrupt and not at the company, the attorneys, the courts, the “System” that is the real party taking all their money. So they get to make the money with NO Accountability to anyone.
Money freely flows to all parts of the system and the Original Company as well as their Consumers, Investors.. Creditors… well they get screwed. But it really is party time for the Court System and all the players that get to share the proceeds from your life’s work. And this is seemingly all legal.
There is too much room in the current Bankruptcy Court System and Liquidation Process to give favors to friends, investors that will “favor you back” in the future, hide money for you, create companies or investments for the future or many – MANY other ways to create a diversion while hiding plenty of YOUR MONEY for their future.
There is tons of money to pay high wages to friends, lawyers, and anyone that they think may be able to help them liquidate in such a way that all their Cronies get big pay offs now and in the future.
Rules are Broken, Laws are Ignored, Judges sign off on certain circumstances in the name of the Highest Fiduciary Responsibility and no one seems to really pay attention to the real High Finance Fraud, Corruption, Theft and total disgrace of the lives and investments of the Real Estate Consumer – the Investor – the Creditor…
Meanwhile the original victims, such as the Real Estate Consumer, Real Estate Investor they get pennies on the dollar and though angry seem to think that there is nothing they can do about it and they blame the company that went bankrupt instead of the fallacies of the Bankruptcy Court System and the Severe Lack of Accountability of the US Depart of Justice Trustee that is Supposedly Looking of the Case. As well as the total lack of investigating or admitted knowledge of the affiliation of all the players involved in any particular Bankruptcy or Liquidation Process.
The Original investor, or real estate consumer, well they Do Care that their money is gone, however with the controlled media on the issue, the news articles that go out on that particular company or bankruptcy situation, what you have is the creation of the perfect storm of illusion. In this the Consumer (Creditor) really believes that the company who is going bankrupt is Evil, Ignorant, Thieves, Criminals, and in this they simply bend over and by in to the illusion that it is in the Justice Courts now and they will get justice someone.
They buy into the thinking that there is nothing they can do and that they are simply powerless as millions of their dollars is spent on unnecessary gibberish. They continue to blame the Original Company that Went Bankrupt while the wolf in sheep’s clothing is running off with their life’s work.
www.LiquidationTrustee.com
my Site on the Severe Problems with the Bankruptcy Courts
my Site on the Severe Problems with the Bankruptcy Courts
R
the Bankruptcy Court System is a Constant, Fraudulent, Blatant attack on the Real Estate Consumer and the Only way to Fix what is Broke is Accountability. The Only way to Real Accountability is for you the Consumer, the Investor, the Creditor... YOU to Expose them and to hold them accountable for the harm they do to you.Do not Look the Other way while this continues to happen. It seems to be an endless - LEGAL - cycle of High Finance - Greed and Corruption and all on your Dime.
Crystal L. Cox
Real Estate Whistleblower
r
www.ObsidianFinanceSucks.com
r
www.RealEstateIndustryWhistleblower.com
r
r
Monday, August 17, 2009
What is Annie and Harold Buell up To ? Are they inline First for their Money, Why? Does the Department of Justice Care?
It seems to me that the Department of Justice has no Clue. The Department of Justice Bankruptcy Trustee is supposed to over see the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy for the Best interest of the Creditors, they are Certainly NOT.
r
Annie and Harold Buell own Buell Property Management, why are they looking for an apartment manager as of 10 days ago for a 64 unit apartment complex for $1,200/mo, no benefits, plus they get a 2-bedroom apartment. Let's say the apartment rents for $1,000/mo. That means they are offering $26,400/annually with no benefits. It is not wonder they would have a high turnover in managers at that type of compensation. It is above the poverty line, but not much.
r
Also what is this Link About.
http://ripoffreport.com/Harold-Buell/Real-Estate-Services/Harold-Buell-Owner-Of-Buell-Pr-537F7.htm
r
Is Harold Buell a "Slum Lord" ? Does Anyone Care?
r
The Link above also has this
Harold Buell
Phone: 360-609-9842
717 Ne 82nd Ave
Vancouver, Washington 98664U.S.A.
r
Much More Coming Soon and check out .. www.AnnieBuell.com for more information on Annie and Harold Buell and why they are so darn important that YOU LOSE, and why the Department of Justice Bankruptcy Trustee DOES not care, will not look into this FOR REAL, and is seemingly clueless to where the Creditors, the Real Estate Victims money is really going and Why.
r
Also Check Out www.ObsidianFinanceSucks.com for more on this Suppression of the TRUTH..
r
r
Annie and Harold Buell own Buell Property Management, why are they looking for an apartment manager as of 10 days ago for a 64 unit apartment complex for $1,200/mo, no benefits, plus they get a 2-bedroom apartment. Let's say the apartment rents for $1,000/mo. That means they are offering $26,400/annually with no benefits. It is not wonder they would have a high turnover in managers at that type of compensation. It is above the poverty line, but not much.
r
Also what is this Link About.
http://ripoffreport.com/Harold-Buell/Real-Estate-Services/Harold-Buell-Owner-Of-Buell-Pr-537F7.htm
r
Is Harold Buell a "Slum Lord" ? Does Anyone Care?
r
The Link above also has this
Harold Buell
Phone: 360-609-9842
717 Ne 82nd Ave
Vancouver, Washington 98664U.S.A.
r
Much More Coming Soon and check out .. www.AnnieBuell.com for more information on Annie and Harold Buell and why they are so darn important that YOU LOSE, and why the Department of Justice Bankruptcy Trustee DOES not care, will not look into this FOR REAL, and is seemingly clueless to where the Creditors, the Real Estate Victims money is really going and Why.
r
Also Check Out www.ObsidianFinanceSucks.com for more on this Suppression of the TRUTH..
r
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
